Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Yes, some of your post I do agree with. And you are right to imply that it would be an exageration to say that I don't agree on anything. But I'm taking all of your post in the contextual framework of our mutual conflict. Not in the specifics.
I sense a global direction toward an idealist thinking and I think you feel that my vision is also putting into question your own, therefore we clash.
Out of all the people here, I think we have the most interesting interaction. I would like it to be more civil but it is what it is.
I sense a global direction toward an idealist thinking and I think you feel that my vision is also putting into question your own, therefore we clash.
Out of all the people here, I think we have the most interesting interaction. I would like it to be more civil but it is what it is.
Learning bout other places governments and tha geography of different nations radicalizes people? Like you do know atleast in America, governemnt klasses are literally required right? Like if you don’t take these and get tha credits for em you won’t graduate right?
Learning bout other nations governments=/= other people and countries hate you lol, what logic is that?
So you want to be the only influence on how your children will see tha world? Kause that sounds a lot like brainwashing lmao
Learning bout other nations governments=/= other people and countries hate you lol, what logic is that?
So you want to be the only influence on how your children will see tha world? Kause that sounds a lot like brainwashing lmao
I didn't say that. I don't want my kids' education to be politically biased towards any side. Either school presents ideas from both sides of the spectrum or none at all. Right-wing and conservative ideologies are straight up omitted from the Brazilian curriculum. Professors are majoritarily authoritarian left-wing militants that can't have civil discourse with students. I know this from experience.
Btw, why do use "K" instead of "C".
Btw, why do use "K" instead of "C".
Aka your deliberately forcing someone's argument through your own personal framework, creating conflict. If someone is speaking in specifics, you don't argue in general and claim they are ignoring things outside of the specifics. You end up debating ghosts that has nothing to do with argument and point someone else is making.
You are assuming again. There has been like 6 different occasions where you go "Im surprised you think that!" after already saying that multiple times before, then forgetting my stance, and eventually acting like you were responsible for the nonexistent "change."
OK?
You are assuming again. There has been like 6 different occasions where you go "Im surprised you think that!" after already saying that multiple times before, then forgetting my stance, and eventually acting like you were responsible for the nonexistent "change."
OK?
Last edited:
Yes, it's a lot of garbage. But careful tho, while the psychiatrist institution is an oppressive one, it doesn't mean that everything needs to be thrown to the garbage. Especially the medication and some of the tools they prescribe or promote.
What is important to understand is that the psychiatric institution (and psychology) gatekeep the tools from people in need through the authority of institution and states, thus letting their interpretation choose who they should help and how they should be choosing to heal people.
Anti-psychiatry activists actually want this power back, they are not necessarily anti-medication, they are more promoting for a form of social collectivisation of the ressources, medication and knowledge in order to help eachothers more effectively and without the potentiality of internalization. (which can be incredibly dangerous for some even if it can help others)
Conflict is the core of politics. There are no politics if there is no conflict, not because we should seek to fight people, but because people have different values to organize society and we can't takle these value by doing like everyone can simply live next to eachothers while one group tries to oppress the other.
Yes. I do that. That is because I have experience on this thread. If you look at the beginning (toward the 1000th pages I would say), you will see that I was the king of specifics. I was going so into the details of each arguments that I was giving an average of 5 link of studies per post (I don't know the exact number).
I spent HOURS searching for studies, elements of answer, vulgarizing videos, papers, words of activists, numbers etc.
AND
EACH
TIME
I ended up debunking the entirerity of the arguments of people.
Of course, it's a lot harder to debunk studies, so people tried, especially far rightist here and fail. And when people from all side realized they couldn't answer me on the specifics, they started to straight up insult me and ignore everything. Literally like what Trump is doing all the time.
It was a pure fest of Post-Truth bullshit. And my facts, articles, demonstrations and specifics ? They never helped me convince anyone. Simply because people don't want to be convinced. It's not cool to admit being wrong when you are not used to it. BUT it helped me. These hours spent searching for activist, numbers and research completely politicized me. Which means that in the span of a few years, I went from liberal idealistic leftist, to radical leftist, to revolutionnary.
After a while, I got tired to spend hours trying to debunk everyone's bad arguments and alternative facts and I thought about a new strategy. That when I come up with the idea of attacking the core of the argumentations, not their specifics.
As an example, instead of telling to someone who is transphobic why transphobia was a bad thing and spending hours trying to explain why with data that I know they won't read, I attacked the DEEPER POLITICAL REASONS behind this transphobia, like talking about the reason why people are transphobes in the first, place, the reason why patriarchy has a role in it, the questions of gender etc.. Meaning that instead of speaking about things that they would eventually deny or ignore, I would bypass the argument directly and attack the subsurface of each belief system.
Needless to say, people didn't like that. After all, recentering their argument within the framework of a domination meant that they were not simply saying a bad stuff randomly no more, they were depicting an oppressive aspect of a system of domination and oppression (like patriarchy for example here).
This is much harder to accept than simply ignoring, denying or trying to debunk some datas and demonstrations, it touches to what we believe the question of self to be within the framework of a system.
And people don't like being told that they are the representation of the system they evolve in. So the ignorance transformed into a flow of comments about my narcissism, the fact that I didn't knew people and was just making personnal jab at them etc.
So I played along. And look at us now, we are finally starting to speak about domination system, even if most people are clumsily laughing about it.
I changed my strategy to avoid losing my time with specific and to REALLY talk about politics instead of listing facts. Which means that now we have discussion that are not trying to debunk articles or these types of stuff. We are talking about values, ethics, materialism, idealism, systems, dominations, oppression, power relationships etc. In other words : politics.
See ? (i didn't read that reply before writing the above, and it is the same behavior". I'm "assuming" stuff about people. But no I'm not. I don't know all your specificities, I don't need to. I told you already multiple times:
There are ways to pinpoint the realm of the ideology and political values of a person without knowing them.
This is how leftist can know with only a few messages who is their ally and who is not. Not because they are ignoring important stuff, but because what they are not ignoring is so fundamental to the leftist thinking process that it creates an instant political opposition with our own values why again ?
Because values come in sets.
Yes, but being surprised is not enough to see a change. i've been surprised many times positively by some far rightists politics in my country, it doesn't mean that they are suddenly more on the left, it only means that people are complex.
But said complexity, within the framework of political debate or opposition, is often not enough to create an allyship between leftist and their opponent. (you could say that it is another story within leftism, but not against class ennemies)
What is important to understand is that the psychiatric institution (and psychology) gatekeep the tools from people in need through the authority of institution and states, thus letting their interpretation choose who they should help and how they should be choosing to heal people.
Anti-psychiatry activists actually want this power back, they are not necessarily anti-medication, they are more promoting for a form of social collectivisation of the ressources, medication and knowledge in order to help eachothers more effectively and without the potentiality of internalization. (which can be incredibly dangerous for some even if it can help others)
Conflict is the core of politics. There are no politics if there is no conflict, not because we should seek to fight people, but because people have different values to organize society and we can't takle these value by doing like everyone can simply live next to eachothers while one group tries to oppress the other.
Yes. I do that. That is because I have experience on this thread. If you look at the beginning (toward the 1000th pages I would say), you will see that I was the king of specifics. I was going so into the details of each arguments that I was giving an average of 5 link of studies per post (I don't know the exact number).
I spent HOURS searching for studies, elements of answer, vulgarizing videos, papers, words of activists, numbers etc.
AND
EACH
TIME
I ended up debunking the entirerity of the arguments of people.
Of course, it's a lot harder to debunk studies, so people tried, especially far rightist here and fail. And when people from all side realized they couldn't answer me on the specifics, they started to straight up insult me and ignore everything. Literally like what Trump is doing all the time.
It was a pure fest of Post-Truth bullshit. And my facts, articles, demonstrations and specifics ? They never helped me convince anyone. Simply because people don't want to be convinced. It's not cool to admit being wrong when you are not used to it. BUT it helped me. These hours spent searching for activist, numbers and research completely politicized me. Which means that in the span of a few years, I went from liberal idealistic leftist, to radical leftist, to revolutionnary.
After a while, I got tired to spend hours trying to debunk everyone's bad arguments and alternative facts and I thought about a new strategy. That when I come up with the idea of attacking the core of the argumentations, not their specifics.
As an example, instead of telling to someone who is transphobic why transphobia was a bad thing and spending hours trying to explain why with data that I know they won't read, I attacked the DEEPER POLITICAL REASONS behind this transphobia, like talking about the reason why people are transphobes in the first, place, the reason why patriarchy has a role in it, the questions of gender etc.. Meaning that instead of speaking about things that they would eventually deny or ignore, I would bypass the argument directly and attack the subsurface of each belief system.
Needless to say, people didn't like that. After all, recentering their argument within the framework of a domination meant that they were not simply saying a bad stuff randomly no more, they were depicting an oppressive aspect of a system of domination and oppression (like patriarchy for example here).
This is much harder to accept than simply ignoring, denying or trying to debunk some datas and demonstrations, it touches to what we believe the question of self to be within the framework of a system.
And people don't like being told that they are the representation of the system they evolve in. So the ignorance transformed into a flow of comments about my narcissism, the fact that I didn't knew people and was just making personnal jab at them etc.
So I played along. And look at us now, we are finally starting to speak about domination system, even if most people are clumsily laughing about it.
I changed my strategy to avoid losing my time with specific and to REALLY talk about politics instead of listing facts. Which means that now we have discussion that are not trying to debunk articles or these types of stuff. We are talking about values, ethics, materialism, idealism, systems, dominations, oppression, power relationships etc. In other words : politics.
See ? (i didn't read that reply before writing the above, and it is the same behavior". I'm "assuming" stuff about people. But no I'm not. I don't know all your specificities, I don't need to. I told you already multiple times:
There are ways to pinpoint the realm of the ideology and political values of a person without knowing them.
This is how leftist can know with only a few messages who is their ally and who is not. Not because they are ignoring important stuff, but because what they are not ignoring is so fundamental to the leftist thinking process that it creates an instant political opposition with our own values why again ?
Because values come in sets.
Yes, but being surprised is not enough to see a change. i've been surprised many times positively by some far rightists politics in my country, it doesn't mean that they are suddenly more on the left, it only means that people are complex.
But said complexity, within the framework of political debate or opposition, is often not enough to create an allyship between leftist and their opponent. (you could say that it is another story within leftism, but not against class ennemies)
Last edited:
Psalm 142:4-7
4 I looked on my right hand, and beheld, but there was no man that would know me: refuge failed me; no man cared for my soul.
5 I cried unto thee, O Lord: I said, Thou art my refuge and my portion in the land of the living.
6 Attend unto my cry; for I am brought very low: deliver me from my persecutors; for they are stronger than I.
7 Bring my soul out of prison, that I may praise thy name: the righteous shall compass me about; for thou shalt deal bountifully with me.
________
My trauma story and healing is these psalms word for word
4 I looked on my right hand, and beheld, but there was no man that would know me: refuge failed me; no man cared for my soul.
5 I cried unto thee, O Lord: I said, Thou art my refuge and my portion in the land of the living.
6 Attend unto my cry; for I am brought very low: deliver me from my persecutors; for they are stronger than I.
7 Bring my soul out of prison, that I may praise thy name: the righteous shall compass me about; for thou shalt deal bountifully with me.
________
My trauma story and healing is these psalms word for word